toonsterwu

It's an interesting decision. I'm not sure how much say/influence Hyde had with the Marlins, but the Marlins system had some major issues in his last few years there. They certainly had some elite talent come through, and attrition was a factor, but a lot of guys seemed to stall, particularly on the arm side. That said, there's only so much a minor league field coordinator could do. Hyde clearly fits more in line with this front office's way of thinking (although oddly ... I had thought that the Marlins were a bit more old school). As for the scouting changes ... feel bad for those guys, but they should find gigs soon enough. Good for the Epstein/Madison/McLeod and Co. to get their guys in.

I don't know about that. I think McNutt probably gets kept around, but I'm not so sure that Watkins is a lock. A lot will depend on what they do with some of the infielders on the 40 right now, I think, guys that could compete for the utility jobs that Watkins will likely push for.

Fascinated with the Silva assignment. It's an interesting group being sent. Curious what the internal thinking is on Rhee, as he's been disappointing this year, as the velocity hasn't, to the best of my knowledge (admittedly, quite busy of late), been as good as last year.

a) When you couple the decline in performance with Beckett and the belief that he was one of the central problems in Boston, my hunch is that Boston views a Beckett move as addition by subtraction. b) I think you are sort of looking at this in a skewed manner. I don't think this was dumping "one bad contract", I think this was a move aimed at giving Cherington the ability to rebuild the team and to avoid the mistakes that Theo Epstein made in his final years there. Theo noted this in some interviews that I saw, which was that, they basically got stuck in a mode of trying to be competitive each year because of the "core" they had in place. By stripping down the core, even though they aren't using the rebuilding word, they are essentially giving Cherington a clean slate to rebuild the club. c) I'm not so sure that any team, with an Adrian Gonzalez type talent with an Adrian Gonzalez type contract and with Adrian Gonzalez having a slightly down year, would be able to net 2 good arms and 2 supporting pieces for him alone (I can envision maybe the 2 arms ... and maybe a lesser piece than Sands/DeJesus), but that's just a guess. When you factor in that they cleared the deck of their financial responsibilities, they simply weren't going to get equal talent. I think, for the Red Sox, this move makes a lot more sense than keeping the veterans around, and I think this is an easy win for them. A win doesn't mean they rebuild fast ... as we have to see what happens with Ellsbury ... and maybe even with Pedroia and Lester, but they needed to clear the deck, and they got two good young arms. Think about "rebuild" jobs and how long it often takes. The Red Sox weren't going to get anywhere in their current state, and they weren't going to be able to move Beckett (he's somewhat become ... in an odd way, their Soriano ... but Soriano is viewed as a good teammate). Now, there's significantly less pressure to be competitive, they get to build from within and avoid the mistakes that Theo made down the stretch (Granted, I wasn't too enthused with their draft this year, and even last, but that's me). At the end of the day, I think this will go in a cycle, so I'll leave it as we simply disagree.

That's fair. I'd have Alcantara in my top 10, but if you asked me if I "buy" him as of now, I'd probably say no as well. Although, I am hopeful.

If they can't keep Ellsbury, it's pretty much going to be a rebuild. I guess they could rebuild fast, if things fall their way, but to me, with only one core bat remaining (Pedroia ... Ortiz is too old IF he returns), it would feel more like a rebuild. May be an issue of semantics, though.

I imagine they'll be involved, but I won't be surprised if they decide to not get ridiculous on Greinke. We'll have to wait and see, but it's not inconceivable that they decide to go with Lester/Buchholz, a couple youngsters, and Lackey and spend a couple years building from within, waiting on Jackie Bradley Jr. (who I still think is a touch over-hyped), Xander Bogaerts, and hoping that they get a SP or two from Barnes/de la Rosa/Webster. You know, I thought he was talking about the Dodgers but he could easily have been referring to the Red Sox. Oh ... considering the Dodgers still have to extend Kershaw and the money they added ... well ... I guess they could go beyond the Yankees budget, but if they added Kershaw and went after Greinke, that would take them to stratospheric levels on the payroll.

I imagine they'll be involved, but I won't be surprised if they decide to not get ridiculous on Greinke. We'll have to wait and see, but it's not inconceivable that they decide to go with Lester/Buchholz, a couple youngsters, and Lackey and spend a couple years building from within, waiting on Jackie Bradley Jr. (who I still think is a touch over-hyped), Xander Bogaerts, and hoping that they get a SP or two from Barnes/de la Rosa/Webster.

I'm on the other side of the fence - I think it's a much better deal for the Dodgers and I kind of wonder about the Red Sox' motivation to do this. Gonzalez' numbers are down this year, but he's still on pace to be a 4-5 WAR guy and the only stats that have dropped off are his BB% and HR/FB. Both are concerns, but neither is a clear indication of a decline and considering he's only 30 for most of next year, decline is very unlikely. Beckett has had a down year this year, but his BB/9 is still good and his xFIP is a pretty average 4.39. He's been a good to very good pitcher every year since 2006 other than this year and is signed to a respectable amount of money for just 2 more years - it's perfectly reasonable to think he can bounce back and be worth the money over that time period. Crawford's the only clearly bad contract being dealt here and, honestly, I'd want what the Dodgers gave up (or close) for Gonzalez alone, so the Red Sox are basically just giving away Beckett and Crawford for salary relief. This trade makes me glad that we got Theo and not Cherington from Boston. Fair enough. I'll say a) As happy as I am about Theo coming here, I think Theo would be the first one to tell you that he was at the helm when most of these mistakes were made for the Red Sox, and is the reason why the Red Sox need to rebuild. They still have the Lackey contract on the books somewhere, and the system doesn't have the arm depth to replenish things right now, which was why getting two young arms was needed. b) Leaving aside the fact that Beckett is viewed as a problem, if not THE problem, Beckett has also lost quite a bit on the fastball. It's been declining since 06. Without the dominant fastball, he's a good arm, but replaceable. c) I think, at least, all indications point to this, that they would've rather kept Gonzalez if they could, but he was the price to pay. Keep in mind that the length and years left on Gonzalez, though, is a huge factor. When you combine that with the length of the Crawford deal, it's just a ridiculous amount of money. It's hard to envision them getting better than that. Look, I won't disagree that if we exclude contracts, this deal is a bit light on the talent side of the Red Sox. But you simply can't ignore the gigantic amount of salary and years they lost in Gonzalez/Crawford. And in return ... they get two guys who have mid-rotation, if not better, ceilings. That's a heck of a return considering how teams over-protect top arms. This clears the deck for the Red Sox, gives them the young arms that they need, along with Barnes, to build a new rotation around Lester/Buchholz. Edit: They also get a solid utility player that could challenge for the starting shortstop gig (although Iglesias is still a better bet there). I'm not the biggest Jerry Sands guy, but I guess he could also challenge for a starting gig, particularly with the hole at first.

It's hard to discern the quality of the club next year at this stage. All that said, given the indications that the Cubs aren't going to go splurging in FA, it's not hard to envision a Cubs club that might be worse than this year's. I hope not, as even though I am accepting/supportive of the rebuilding, that would really suck. It's not hard to envision a bad rotation. It's not hard to envision some young guys struggling. It's not hard to envision a shaky pen. Now, I think, for the most part, we'll probably have a team that is similar in ability to this year's squad, maybe a tinge better, but I have high doubts on the ability for the Cubs to "compete" next year, assuming "compete" means to be around .500.

I will miss the insight and commentary from Nate. Since I'm so far away, I really don't have an opinion on the move.

Yeah, they're an odd case, and it's hard to get a read on wht they're trying to do. I get the impression there is some sort of disconnect/power struggle between elements in the FO. I'm thinking the noise about Lucchino's increasingly heavy handed meddling may be true. I'm intrigued with Lester, but admittedly, am a bit concerned with how his fastball has lost a bit of velocity. He's still a solid starter, but he's not the same pitcher he was in 09/10. All that said, I think they are going to wait on moving Lester. The general feeling seemed to be that Beckett was the bad apple, and clearing Crawford/Gonzalez buys them a lot of flexibility/space. Even if this is Lucchino meddling, this is giving Cherington a lot of power, as he gets to remake the team. They could have a really young team next year with Pedroia as the anchor, but there's one more domino, which is Jacoby Ellsbury. There have been some indications that he might want out. If they can get Ellsbury to stay, their rebuilding might not take that long, as Middlebrooks/Pedroia/Ellsbury could be joined by Kalish and Lavaranway on a full-time basis soon (2013), and Xander Bogaerts could replace a lot of lost power by 2014. Add in a rotation headed by Lester/Buchholz, and the money to add a pitcher or two, and things could turn around quick ... but they first have to figure out the Ellsbury situation.

Amazing deal for the Red Sox. I still can't believe it. Getting rid of all that salary AND getting 2 solid young pitching prospects? I can sort of understand this for the Dodgers. They are trying to make a push now, and hoping that it will help with ticket sales and spur interest. But it's a risky proposition, and I'm not sure they make the playoffs. Of course, if they can get in, having Kershaw and that offense ... they could conceivably be the favorites.

I'm not the biggest Yao-lin Wang fan out there, and part of me feels guilty about that, but he has really had a strong run since moving to the rotation. The one thing he has on the other arms there is that he's more polished with better secondary feel. With how well he's done, he should stick in the rotation for the A+ jump. The raw stuff is far better than Hung-Wen Chen's, although I still don't know if he's a starter long run.

I can agree with that. I might give an A- to Baez, and maybe a B to Johnson depending on how this season ends for him. But pretty much dead on. I'd lean to an A- for Baez as well, unless some alarming hole emerges in game that isn't a case of being so young in A+. I guess I'm still in a more wait and see mode on Vogelbach than everyone else. On Sickels, I'd lean towards a high B- there. But really, the only issue are the B and up grades, as I think even Sickels has noted before that C+/B- guys aren't separated by all that much and may be a matter of personal preference (or I think he's said something like that before).

I can buy it, although ... I think I'm apt to rank both Underwood and Blackburn over Maples. I've just never been THAT excited about Maples, although it was awesome that we landed him. Here's my question to you - why the big gap from Villanueva to Alcantara? What is it about the 3rd baseman that you like more than the shortstop, by such a wide margin.

dexter, I haven't really read this thread, and I don't know if I will get around to it, but just jumping in solely off of the discussions on the final couple pages a) I don't think there's an issue to discuss his struggles because ... well ... it's been two completely different months, and in situations like that, even though I agree with nuts that the SS is too small to be too worried, I think it's worth asking some questions, whatever those questions are, and whether or not he'll make the adjustments to them. b) All that said, I wonder if perhaps expectations were set too high for some reason? I look at his overall line right now (and granted, with the two extreme months, the overall line doesn't mean as much right now ... but I only note it because you point to his overall production), and I say to myself, that's fairly close to what I expected, particularly when you factor in his age. It's been odd how he's gotten here, but I really don't think the overall line is that troublesome. The issue right now is that he's had two extreme months, but I kept on cautioning people that, while I hoped for an every year A-S type, it was quite possible that he might simply be a moderately better version of say, Adam LaRoche.

This is a bit odd with me coming to Wood's defense (a very, very mild defense), as I never thought he was anything more than an end of the rotation arm (and I thought he was over-hyped by some on this board). But ... he's a young arm trying to figure it out. I think he has better potential than a Brooks Raley type, although I still wonder if he might be more of a Sean Marshall, a lefty that is better off in the pen. That said, at the end of the day, young arms tend to struggle as they try to figure things out. He's shown enough flashes that I'm fine with penciling him in as a starter for next year (although only Garza/Shark should be guaranteed spots, assuming they are here).

Clippard's been excellent, but he's gone through some lumps in the 2nd half. That said, yeah, I doubt it. The thought has crossed my mind a few times, though, particularly if Storen isn't at full blast. Clippard's worked a ton the last three years.

It'll happen. I threw out an Alberto Cabrera comp somewhere, and it's very possible that Peralta never puts it together as a starter, like Cabrera. That said, there just aren't that many raw arms in the system right now to get really excited about, and he has exciting potential.

Actually, I can understand that. I wish we did know more about the injury. I mean, if it's something major, it really could impact thinking. I guess, I'm working with the idea that he'll be okay, physically, next spring, so in my mind, I can utilize his performance this year and the scouting reports on his potential, to go with. But I recall Sam Fuld's injury several years back in the system. Lost in the discussion about Fuld was the fact that he lost a good step after the injury. He probably had plus speed back in the day (I really don't recall anymore, and don't recall any of the reports on him). So yeah, I think it's fair to be concerned about injuries. I mean, if Alcantara has something that costs him lateral range, I'd definitely be concerned.

I should've been more careful in my typing. I break things down into tiers (started doing this when I used to follow the NFL draft, and it's just carried over). I think we're deep, but if we break the system down into say, tiers, I think that 2nd tier, after Baez/Almora/Soler and maybe Vizcaino (I'm assuming BJax graduates), I think that 2nd tier is a bit weak as of now. Vitters would fit in there for me in that 2nd tier (I really doubt he loses rookie eligibility). A lot of the guys that make up the strong depth of the system, I consider them to be in the 3rd/4th tiers of the system. A lot of end of the rotation guys, a lot of possible pen arms, a lot of young raw guys with upside in that grouping. I guess, for clarity's purpose, I have Amaya in that "3rd tier" for me (debating top 10 for him, or just outside of it in that 11-15 rank). I really like what he's done, but he's really far away, and I'm still curious what the power upside is. It seems like, as of now, the best case defensive scenario is a guy that is average/passable at 2nd, so he'll need his offense to really carry him. There just seems to be enough justifiable concern on him to not get too crazy over him as of now. Edit: I'm not sure I'm going to have time to finish up my top 30 list today, so for clarity's sake, I'll throw my top 10 here to explain my "tiers". Top tier Baez, Almora, Soler (I think Baez deserves to be ranked above this group for now, as he has elite potential, but this it the largely agreed upon top 3, could go either way with Almora/Soler) 2nd tier - Vizcaino/Jackson/Szczur/Vitters/Candelario - Candelario's upside justifies a spot in this group, IMO, as he offers a potential all-around dominant hitter. He just needs some time (although the lack of power the last 2 months is troublesome, expectations were always that it would take time for him to fully tap into his power). There's an outside chance that BJax won't be eligible, so I may have to remove him. I love Vizcaino, but there has to be some concern held for him, medically and work load wise, as of now. One could, outside of Jeimer, view this 2nd tier as guys that look, on paper, to have a decent chance to reach the bigs and have some productive time. That's fair to question, but in my head, what I was balancing, and what separated these guys from the guys after, was that, as of now, I view their potential/value/risk combination as being better. In Candelario's case, that's pure potential is that exciting (and it makes me wonder if I have him too low). There's a lot of names in that list, but it feels like a weak 2nd tier to me because of the issues with Arodys (health), BJax (K's), Vitters (ceiling and defense, I guess), Candelario (raw), so hence why I view the 2nd tier as weak. 3rd tier - Alcantara, Torreyes (and yes, that's top 10 for him on my list as of now ... doesn't mean that I've changed my mind about anything I've said on him before, and it doesn't mean that I am not taking a wait and see on how he does in AA), Vogelbach, Villanueva, Pierce Johnson, Amaya, Hernandez (I've only worked on a partial list as of now, so a lot more people could fit in here, and maybe some could slide ahead of some of the guys I've listed so far)

I get that, to a certain extent, but is the fact that there's positional scarcity enough to compensate for the fact that there's a glaring issue with Villanueva? Again, just curious on thought processes, as I'm not here to change anyone's mind. I mean, both Alcantara and Villanueva have big question marks as it relates to their approach. Both guys may have a touch higher ceiling than Szczur (that's debatable, but I'll grant that for this discussion), but it's hard for me to overlook positional value and the fact that he doesn't have a glaring problem as of now. I think a lot of the love for Villanueva comes from SNT syndrome. Yeah, I imagine. I feel like I'm bashing Cubs prospects these days when I don't intend to. I like Villanueva a ton, and I know why folks are intrigued. If he shows that he could have more then average power, and if the approach issue is improved (both possible), he'd easily be ahead of Szczur. I'm not sure I buy Szczur's ceiling as anything more than solid, and I think I can buy Villanueva being better than solid. I guess I'll be thickheaded and keep Alcantara ahead of him. I imagine that most of the lists will go the other way, but I can't help wonder ... what the heck is the difference btw the two guys offensive ceilings. If the difference isn't big, I'll take the shortstop ahead of Villanueva, even if I have doubts on Arismendy.

Well, to the extent that the K rate isn't a tremendous concern, it isn't that big an issue. But ... if that's the case, then Alcantara and Junior Lake aren't big issues. I don't know enough on Villanueva to comment beyond what's been said about him, so that's why I'm sort of dragging Alcantara/Lake into this response. Both are guys that are known as aggressive swingers with discipline concerns, but their K numbers wouldn't suggest it (well ... 20+% on Lake is a bit more problematic for this discussion than Alcantara). That said, having seen them over the years ... they are ... aggressive swingers (as a random side note, I feel like aggressive is the nice word for "free") with questionable approaches/discipline. For the most part, Villanueva's reports read that way, and that's why I'm viewing it in that prism as of now. I guess, glaring issue might be over-stating it. Maybe ... a serious issue of concern, as with Szczur's walk rate entering 2012.

I had a huge comment type up, but browser froze. Anyhow, I think the "slappy" label on his swing isn't that fair anymore. I saw his swing last year, saw his swing this year. It seemed much improved. I would note that he was hitting for much better pop in May/June, before the injury. I don't think Szczur is Ha defensively, as he lacks the arm, but he can definitely run down all the throws, and one of the critiques about him last year, that he took poor routes at times, seems to be slowly disappearing. But skipping ahead on the analysis of Szczur ... you've overlooked the crux of my discussion point. I've never suggested that Szczur was going to be a stud starting CF. The most positive praise I gave on Szczur this year was probably what I wrote above - that I think he could be a decent starter and that he might have some potential to be a bit more. I was tremendously down on Szczur this past winter. Very wary of him, and I'm sure there's comments littered in a ton of places. That said, our system isn't that deep after the top few guys. So ... I'm curious, who else fits in ahead of him in the top 10?